Photo illustration courtesy of junior Linnaea Marks.
A discussion in my AP Literature and Composition class prompted me to frustratedly and noisily type away at my journal assignment. Having just read an excerpt from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self Reliance,” we discussed transcendentalism and the emphasis on individuality in his work.
To my complete shock, my fellow classmates chastised nonconformity, claiming that if everyone were individualists no one would get along.
This threw me for a loop; were my classmates misconstruing nonconformity with defiance? I believe yes.
In contrast from what they believe, I stated that if the world were made up of individualists, we would be more open minded, listening to one another rather than blindly following propaganda and regurgitating false information we find on Facebook.
Nonconformity is not the same as rejecting everyone else’s ideas; nonconformity is having some original ones of your own. While there are certain aspects of society in which adhering to the norm is necessary (certain laws and basic morals namely), nonconformity does not necessarily mean the defiance of these constructs.
Rejecting the norm has actually been proven to have psychological benefits. According to a study published in Psychology Today, standing your ground against a group is “physiologically invigorating.” The study concluded that “the rewards of nonconformity beat succumbing to a herd mentality.”
One of the first occasions in history in which there is an apparent philosophical focus on individuality is from the work of American transcendentalists. Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Louisa May Alcott, and many more writers voiced their opinions on breaking the mold and listening to one’s inner voice.
To summarize the beliefs of the transcendentalists, Emerson wrote “to be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”
These writers were huge influences for major social and political movements: Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr named Thoreau as an inspiration for their involvement in the Indian independence and civil rights movements.
Beatniks, much like the American transcendentalists, rejected conventional society. Hippies in the 1960s idolized Thoreau and the transcendentalists. Even the punk movement drew influence from the nonconformist beliefs of the historic writers.
Most of these movements have a lasting impact on today’s generation; however, people largely neglect the purpose of the movements, and what is left to be remembered is superficial. People have an idea of what punk is, but that connotation is generally associated with spiky hair, piercings, and leather.
Senior and resident punk enthusiast Sylas Grove commented that “you having to look a certain way to be punk is against the basis of the term.” Grove added that “the idea of punk is rejecting standards and choosing to view things in your own light regardless of what other people think, which I think is pretty different than most people’s view on what punk is.”
Wow. That sounds like a direct definition of nonconformity to me.
So why today are my classmates rejecting the idea of rejecting conformity? I repeatedly heard some students state that “there’s a healthy balance” between blind obedience and individualism, but I don’t understand the harm of having original thoughts and ideas.
I think that young people should look into the history of individualism and see all the brilliant minds and groundbreaking movements that stemmed from its philosophy before they declare nonconformity irrational.
